PrepTest 143, Section 1, Question 18
Police captain: The chief of police has indicated(41 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the police(13 more words not shown)
- Abases a rebuttal(13 more words not shown)
- Bfails to consider(16 more words not shown)
- Cbases a claim(14 more words not shown)
- Dtakes for granted(14 more words not shown)
- Erelies on a(9 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Those gifts count as graft. Are they the only things that count? Suppose a restaurant gave an officer a special parking privilege in exchange for favorable treatment. That might count as graft even if it weren't one of the cash or object gifts the chief described. We don't need to decide the actual rules for that favor. The example shows the possibility the captain hasn't ruled out: a different kind of improper benefit.
What we’re looking for
The captain is certain that no officer in the precinct accepted the specified gifts. Let's grant that. It still doesn't clear the officers of every possible instance of graft unless the chief's description covers every way graft can occur. The flaw answer should identify that missing step.
Working the answers
- A
The captain claims knowledge about every officer in the precinct, which is also the scope of the accusations being rejected. We aren't drawing a conclusion about all police officers from a few officers. The gap concerns kinds of graft, not the size of an officer sample.
- BCorrect
The chief has identified gifts that are enough to count as graft. The argument treats them as though graft requires those gifts. Other improper benefits could exist, so establishing that no one accepted this particular kind doesn't establish that every accusation of graft is unfounded.
- C
The captain doesn't argue that the officers are good people and therefore couldn't have acted improperly. The premise is a claim about what gifts they took. The problem remains even if that factual claim is accurate.
- D
The argument concludes that the graft accusations are unfounded. It doesn't then use that conclusion to reject a broader category of corruption accusations. D describes a further inference the captain never makes.
- E
The premise and conclusion could both be true: perhaps the officers took no such gifts and committed no graft. The mistake is that the premise doesn't establish the conclusion. A gap in support isn't a contradiction between the two claims.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.